Raja Ram Vs Rajesh Yadav

¶1

1

¶2

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:50196

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 536 of 2018

¶7

1 - Raja Ram S/o S/o Ram Sai Aged About 41 Years Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Sayarrai, P.S., Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Rajesh Yadav S/o S/o Ram Awadh Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Parsa (Garadand) Post Bhusu P.S., Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Varun Kumar S/o Late Lal Bihari Prasad R/o Village Tand Muhalla, Post, P.S. Chainpur, District Palamu, Jharkhand, District : Palamu, Jharkhand.

¶11

3 - Branch Manager Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Ltd. Registered Office Ifco Sadan C 1, District Centre Saket New Delhi Through Branch Manager Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Comapny Ltd. Shop No. 205 M.M. Silver Bhawan In Front Of Udhyog Bhawan Ring Road 1, Mahaveer Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 3 : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate.

¶13

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

2

Order on Board

08/10/2025

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant for enhancement against the award dated 17.11.2017 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, DistrictSurguja (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 26/2017 whereby compensation of Rs. 1,44,810/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded.

¶18

Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellant/claimant filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, before the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Ambikapur, District Surguja, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,55,444/- for injuries sustained in an accident on 26.11.2016. According to the claimant, on that date, while traveling to Raghunathpur as a passenger on a scooter driven by Awdhesh Kumar Tirkey, near Village Sayarra Main Road, the respondent no. 1, driving a pickup truck (Registration No. CG 03/J 6583) in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the scooter, causing grievous injuries and a fracture to the claimant’s right leg. The claimant, an agriculturist and part-time laborer earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, filed the claim seeking compensation for loss of income. In response, respondents no. 1

¶19

3

¶20

and 2 denied the allegations, stating the vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3, the driver held a valid license, and the accident resulted from the claimant’s own negligence, thus absolving them of liability. Respondent no. 3, the insurer, argued the driver violated the insurance policy terms and lacked a valid license, denying liability. After hearing the parties and examining evidence, the tribunal awarded Rs. 1,44,810/- as compensation, prompting the appellant to prefer this appeal.

¶21

The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,02,810/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of earning, Rs. 6,000/- towards traveling expense, Rs. 3,000/- towards attendent expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards diet and Rs. 10,000/- towards Physical and mental agaony. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 1,44,810/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant/claimant.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,44,810/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the awarded compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, the compensation amount may be enhanced suitably. Hence, this appeal may be allowed and awarded amount needs to be enhanced suitably.

¶23

4

¶24

On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶26

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

¶27

Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶28

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hare Krushna Mahanta vs. Himadari Sahu & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 262 has observed as under:-

¶29

“9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is borne from the record that the Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. It is imperative for this Court, however, to reiterate that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair

¶30

5

¶31

compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. This came to be reiterated by this Court recently in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204 , wherein it was observed:”

¶32

"17. The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount."

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 20,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 15,000/towards traveling expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards attendant expenses are hereby enhanced.

¶34

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶37

Raghu Jat

¶38

Judge

Raja Ram v. Rajesh Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Ram v. Rajesh Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sangeeta Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Kumar Patel Vs Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya

Tanuja Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shabbir Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivraj Singh Painkra Vs State of Chhattisgarh